Well I call BS. He has said many of times that "There is a painting so there must be a painter. Building, builder and so on." He posits at the end of that speech that if there is something that is designed, which everything is, there must be a designer. That implies that he does believe the banana as proof that God exists as he believes design proves it. The only thing he parodies in that cut from the video is the coke can to evolution. Which would be funny if he wasn't serious and if he wasn't outright dishonest by forgetting to mention that aluminum cans don't happen by themselves in nature, yet evolution does and has been seen. However that doesn't fit into his world view, so he skips it. Its also easier to complain that atheists take his argument of the banana out of context then it is to admit that the argument is wrong on many points.

+

+

[[User:gizmoiscariot|gizmoiscariot]] 12:41, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

Revision as of 14:42, 10 September 2008

"Contrary to his concession on the Hellbound Alleee show, he maintains that he no longer uses it as an argument as atheists have maliciously removed the Coke can segment to take the banana argument out of context."

What Coke can segment? Removed it from what? From the Hellbound Alleee episode? - dcljr 10:57, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

I can probably shed some light on this. The whole show can be found here. It starts at about the 2:30 mark for the coke can. Right before he brings up the banana argument on the Way of the Master show, he first starts off his his coke can argument for design. He starts with a parody of how he sees evolution, but relates it to the coke can. Short version "Millions of years pass, dirt comes up to make the shape of can, then millions more of years go by and paint falls from the sky and writes Coca Cola on the side, and a tab appears at the top." In some ways that is funnier than the banana argument. After that nonsense, he then goes "No, the can was designed so it had to have a designer." If I remember correctly thats when he pulls out the banana and starts on that. Ray's complaint is the banana argument is not nearly as strong without the coke can thing to set it up. Personally I feel that it sounds even dumber to add the coke can part, so personally I think its a moot point. However, thats why Ray cries about it. gizmoiscariot 11:01, 10 September 2008 (PDT)

Correct. If you look at the Atheist Test I linked to in the article, you'll see the Coke can argument laid out. He argues that since evolution doesn't work for a Coke can, it's ridiculous to think it works for biological organisms. After stating that, he then makes an argument with the banana to show how it's designed. His response to people who laugh at it and point out the flaws with the argument is to contend that the Coke can argument is a necessary component of the banana argument as he's comparing the banana with the Coke can (such as it has a tab to open, but no other similarity). It is an attempt to save face. He maintains that the banana argument doesn't make sense without the coke can. He recently made an entry entitled The Banana Isn't Proof where he claims atheists unscrupulously removed the Coke can portion to take the banana argument out of context, and that is the real reason he doesn't use it -- instead of not using it because it's flawed:

Thanks to Youtube I realize that I will have to say this over and over. Many times I have compared a banana to a coke can (with its tab at the top, etc.) using something called "parody." This is arguably a humorous way of making a point. Atheists removed the coke can and said that I believe that the banana is proof that God exists. In doing so they did a good job and making a monkey out of me.

Well I call BS. He has said many of times that "There is a painting so there must be a painter. Building, builder and so on." He posits at the end of that speech that if there is something that is designed, which everything is, there must be a designer. That implies that he does believe the banana as proof that God exists as he believes design proves it. The only thing he parodies in that cut from the video is the coke can to evolution. Which would be funny if he wasn't serious and if he wasn't outright dishonest by forgetting to mention that aluminum cans don't happen by themselves in nature, yet evolution does and has been seen. However that doesn't fit into his world view, so he skips it. Its also easier to complain that atheists take his argument of the banana out of context then it is to admit that the argument is wrong on many points.